"You scored 10 right answers out of 10" (1st time)

I made a mistake when I voted on this thread. I should voted negligible but I hit the wrong box/or I did't read it probably.

Keel

From Monash University, to counter some of the "deniers'" arguments:

http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html#_Toc240972834

EDIT: You will notice that it contains proper references

and responses like: I think they should have left that out or had a better headline answer, for those who don't read the full text...

Some might say... typical, if it doesn't fit their ideas, it is irrelevant ...

I will read through it and make comments, but my initial point would be this guy is an economist at World Vision, who have a substantial interest in furthering AGW...

Absolutely: and he includes the disclaimer:

>> This is a personal page published by the author. The ideas and information expressed on it have not been approved or authorised by Monash University either explicitly or impliedly. In no event shall Monash University be liable for any damages whatsoever resulting from any action arising in connection with the use of this information or its publication, including any action for infringement of copyright or defamation. <<

at the end.

It is dangerous when things get published on what appear at first glance to be official websites. How many 'ordinary' people would have assumed that to be the Universities official stance ?

And that goes for many things, not just this topic.

8. It was warmer during medieval times

Probably false, but irrelevant anyway.

UTTER UTTER BOLLOX! In all the research I have read on this subject this has to be the biggest piece of rubbish EVER.
How dare this moron suggest that the Medieval Warming Period be “false” or “irrelevant”.

This is well beyond a joke. His comment “Second, recent research suggests that the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ as it now increasingly described by scientists” - he doesn’t say the scientists who call it an “anomaly" are AGW scientists who need to minimise it (and as proved in the CRU leak would rather it never happened at all).

The references he provides for this include once again Mann (who we now know manipulated data to “prove” his theory, and “Realclimate” (Mann and friends….)

Sorry, rapidly losing faith in this rubbish and will be contact the author to tell him so.

What a dickhead.

Agreed. But there are few people or institutions of whom you can't say the same.

(Actually, with no heirs and thus nothing to "invest" in the future, I might be considered pretty neutral in this - no-one is suggesting the planet is going to be uninhabitable during *my* lifetime!)

And in any case, unless we bite the bullet and curb population growth very substantially, Copenhagen, Kyoto and suchlike are a waste of time.

From Realclimate (28 November 2004): Medieval Warm Period (”MWP”) Period of relative warmth in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere in comparison with the subsequent several centuries.

As noted by Jones and Mann (2004) [Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004], arguments that such evidence supports anomalous global warmth during this time period is based on faulty logic and/or misinterpretations of the available evidence.

This is the same Mann who in an email said: “Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…. “

Are the alarm bells ringing yet chaps?????

For the record, 742 scientists in 442 research institutions in 42 separate countries all agree on MWP. They used ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. This agreed with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer worldwide during the period.

I am in the same boat. But it doesn't mean I am prepared to allow some idiot like this to twist facts. To deny the MWP is absolute rubbish.

I will take this up with the Author, and with Monash. It does their reputation no good whatsoever.

These dudes might have a point:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...radiation.html

So slapphead, how will I know you amongst all the other folks at Walk Against Warming today?

http://www.walkagainstwarming.org/index.php?p=home.php

Well obviously he will be the guy with the big, shiny, sunburnt, slaphead....


...oh wait. That probably won't narrow it down much.

I am not against or for AGW.

I am against sham science.

Walking will not fix that. Hard facts will.